ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:The Man Trap (episode)
Text being removed? Not quite clear why someone has removed a lot of interesting and useful trivia from this page about the Swahili spoken, Wah Chang's design of the salt vampire, and the Wrigley's Pleasure Planet joke. This info has been removed twice! Standard operating procedure would dictate that you provide reasons for removing data from a page, such as inaccuracies, on this talk page. :I've reverted the reversion, howevger, Alan is correct -- this information is mostly misplaced. :Information about Bruce Watson's performance doesn't go here, it would probably be best placed at the article about Bruce Watson or in a background note at Green. :The information about the Swahili language should go -- you guessed it -- at the article called Swahili. :Thanks for your help suggesting the moves, we can probably get this article cleaned up soon -- by removing this extraneous info to the correct articles, rather than leaving it at the wrong place here. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:02, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::When Gvsualan removed information from this article on 1 Jan 2006, he noted in the edit summary: :::moved several points from background to more appropriate pages regarding item/individual, rm many "nitpickish" references that really don't qualify as "background" notes or are mentioned elsewhere. ::I just checked and found the information about the planet's name at Wrigley's Pleasure Planet, which is where that information belongs according to discussions we had about background information and "nitpicks". -- Cid Highwind 00:04, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::With that in mind, I'm not really sure about the recent revertion from Alan's version to the one still containing information that has already been moved. -- Cid Highwind 00:05, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I think it would have been great if the part about Swahili had actually been removed to the Swahili article though -- there's little in the way of useful information there, nothing made it over there when the information was removed. If the reference to the Swahili translation had been placed in that article, then i would have considered it moved. :It might even have been useful if policy was followed and the information had been placed here on this talk page. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :::You may wish to check Swahili language, because that is where I moved the information to, therefore "nothing made it over there when the information was removed" is quite inaccurate. Otherwise, as Cid have observed, all useful information was properly moved as I stated in what limited room the summary bar allowed. --Alan del Beccio 00:18, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::* Watch Bruce Watson's funny double-take when Yeoman Rand slaps his hand. He turns and looks directly at the camera in frustration, in an Oliver Hardy manner. Watson also played the creature as unfamiliar with the doors of the ship, nearly stumbling out of the botany lab in terror at the reaction of Sulu's plant, Gertrude. :::The above does not qualify as "background" info. --Alan del Beccio 00:20, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I stand corrected, of course, Alan -- my apologies. Anyway, I just reverted to make sure we hadn't lost any text by the wayside -- and I think it might be useful for the Green or Bruce Watson articles to get the nitpicky info, and i do think its important to explain where the info went to the IP users who started this line of questioning... :but again, i'm tired, begging apology. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk ::To avoid such confusion in the future, can we perhaps agree to either put actual links to target pages in the edit summary, or if there's not enough space, to comment on the talk page? -- Cid Highwind 00:30, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::: Wow, didn't realize I would need my boots for this... Anyway, why don't we just impliment some sort of outline in regards to what belongs in the background sections of episode pages, per the discussion on ten forward and per the simple logic that 'background information' means exactly that...'behind the scenes information', not 'nit picks', 'funny observations' or other data that is more relevant and useful on the pages the data is about ("double your pleasure" = origin of the name Wrigley's Pleasure Planet). Otherwise, the fact that the summary bar was used does explain to the IP user (who check's the history) where it went. If we had a Memory Alpha:Background or link within another page about page usage we could simply link there as well, rather than finding or referring to a Ten Forward conversation that isn't right at our fingertips. --Alan del Beccio 00:59, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::A guideline page to link to in such cases sounds good - perhaps called [[Memory Alpha:Background Information|Memory Alpha:Background information]] / MA:BI ;) -- Cid Highwind 01:16, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying, everybody. I'm glad the information still survives elsewhere. I just didn't know where it had gone. I'm not sure that it's such a bad idea to have information in more than one place, however. I think it would be good to always leave a notation on the "talk" page any time deletions are made. - Kurt of North Bend Nitpicks I have removed the following text as the points seem little more than nitpicks: :*At two points in this episode, the doors can be heard opening and closing without the overdubbed sound effect. Once when the-creature-as-Green leaves the botany lab and again during the final scene on the bridge. :*Kirk's communicator flops open as he is crawling along the ground during the shoot-out with Crater. Aholland 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC) ::I've re-added them. They seem more along the lines of "production notes", in that they describe occurrences within the episode. They would be "nitpicks" if they attempted to phrase the comments as if these were mistakes, or problems with the production. I think its fine to have short notes about staging details. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I'm confused. "Kirk's communicator flops open, which it shouldn't do" is a nitpick, but "Kirk's communicator flops open" isn't? "A sound effect was not used, but should have been to be consistent" is a nitpick, but "a sound effect was not used" isn't? This seems an extraordinarily low standard for any kind of commentary on minor production errors. All someone has to do is just describe a production problem, leave the inference that it is a continuity error or production mistake, and it stays? Surely that can't be right, as staging details generally do not have the inference of a minor error having been made. So . . . why are these okay to remain again? Aholland 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC) :::They add no critic to the episode or writing, they are just pointing out that something happened went wrong. "Gates McFadden can be seen wearing a watch in scene XYZ" is fine, but "Crusher does have a 20th century watch even though something like this does not exist in the 24th century" is the wrong, non-neutral tone. --Kobi 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) ::Things which seem to be exceptions to a rule can be noted, i believe (i.e. "this was the only episode this effect/premise was used/not used.") or notes about the production (as i've said before, "The set was reused from another planet set/another movie set.." etc.", "The costume lacked the patches used in later appearances..", etc) -- it becomes a nitpick when the writer attempt to correlate it to some problem they have with the note (i.e. "How are we supposed to believe these two aliens have the same wall decorations?", "The costumes are all wrong because they don't correspond to Navy rank systems..", etc..). A production note tells you that something happened or appeared a certain way, but a nitpick implies that there is a problem with it doing so. Keep in mind that specific observances could be moved to the separate article, and should be removed from the "background notes" of the episode page -- for example, if a phaser beam is blue instead of red, maybe it goes on phasers' page(s?) -- Captain M.K.B. 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks - I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make. I still think it allows nitpicks in the guise of production info, but since it evidently hasn't been a huge problem thus far, I'll just be quiet and move along on this one. Aholland 20:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC) :Just so you don't feel totally alone, I'm still not completely clear on the distinction myself... heh. See Memory Alpha talk:Nitpick#Nitpicks/Bloopers for my questions and a further discussion on the issue. -- Renegade54 20:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC) In response to this comment: :In early episodes like this one, there are up and down indicators that light up outside the turbolifts. Although they will be seen in subsequent episodes, only in the earliest ones do they actually light up to indicate direction of travel. In Elaan of Troyius, the turbolift lights are quite indicative of direction of travel--first up to down, then left to right. So it's not something they dropped, at least not completely. Further nitpicks Another big nitpick removed (see below). --From Andoria with Love 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC) :"The Man Trap" was a curious choice to kick off a new series because it clearly runs ''against the grain of what Gene Roddenberry wanted to portray in terms of human/alien relations. The Salt Vampire needn't have been killed in the end. McCoy's first phaser stun effectively crippled the creature and saved Kirk. While "Nancy" reappears crumpled over, begging for her life, McCoy could have backed out of the room and Spock, sitting on the floor nearby, could have grabbed Kirk. The creature could then have been returned to M-113 with a stockpile of salt to live out the remainder of its life. With tissue samples, the Federation could even have attempted to repopulate the species. However, by killing the creature outright, when it had only been acting on an instinct to survive, "The Man Trap" sends the message that Star Trek would be no different from the "cowboys and indians" shows of the day, in which the "bad guys" get killed in the end. Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to be better than that.'' Remastered cuts The remastered version of this episode aired in my market today, and I intended to add some information, but I'm leery of doing it now that I've seen the episode. Specifically, I'm wondering if the dialog cuts really are a part of the new package or if they were caused by my local station here. Specifically, the conversation between Berkeley and the officer played by Garrison True is gone, as is Uhura's famous line about the word "frequency." Has anyone else seen the episode and can comment on or confirm whether these things really were removed, or know of an online source that documents changes/comparisons between the original and remastered episodes (not just effects changes)? - Bridge 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC) :As stated elsewhere ad nauseum, no, the cuts are not in the final version. CBS/Paramount decided to release the remastered in broadcast in syndication, which means local stations can edit and cut lines and scenes to add more commercials. This is also done differently from affiliate to affiliate, so it isn't worth cataloging changes on MA. The DVD release will be full, no cuts. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ::Thanks, Cobra. I hadn't seen anything about the cuts not being in the final version, but I'm glad to hear it. I'll leave the remastered stuff alone until we see the "real thing." :) - Bridge 02:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Background Cleanup Some information I removed while cleaning up background: The following are not really notable enough IMHO, but if there is more to them feel free to re-add: * Crewman Darnell is the first fatality in the non-pilot episodes, not counting the dog creature from Alfa 177 in the previous episode. * Kirk is holding six salt tablets when he tries to tempt the creature. * McCoy has a safe in his room, but there are no combination buttons below it. (part of a larger note about McCoy's quarters) * This is the only time in the series when the camera view of a phaser is from the top instead of from the side. And I think this is a bit too nitpicky: * When the Salt Vampire, in the form of Uhura's Crewman, is distracted by Sulu and Rand leaving the botany lab, Uhura rushes to join them in the turbolift. First, however, she activates the intercom to acknowledge Kirk's hail, but doesn't turn it off. Some of the other production notes are somewhat nitpicky, but have been accepted above. – Cleanse 05:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I removed another instance of the "six salt tablets" note today. Still not sure what the point of that is...– Cleanse ( talk | ) 13:40, December 22, 2010 (UTC) About the Spock Blooper It's mentioned here that the blooper reel clip of Leonard Nimoy's son entering the bridge is from this episode. However, it is an extension of the scene of Spock calling down to Kirk and asking if he's alright because he "sounds tired." This is from . Since I'm not 100% sure, I didn't change it. But if anyone could confirm or deny... Scott son of Pete 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Visual and Sound Effects I've removed this line: :*Alexander Courage's score for this episode was reused in several other first season episodes. Since practically every score was reused in other episodes, this information isn't worth noting here. However, putting a different spin on it, such as pointing out when a score or piece of music was unique to an episode and never heard again would be worthy of note (such as the score behind Kirk's run when Sulu fires shots in ). Scott son of Pete 17:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC) :I disagree. It is worth pointing out in the episode where a score started that it is the original. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC) ::I agree with Cobra's disagreement. Where the score originated is notable. Of course, a list of which other first season episodes would be even more helpful. – Cleanse 00:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Uncredited extras I've watched the episdoe twice in a row, and I can't see where Hadley or Brent appear. Aside from what IMDb says, are we sure they're in this episode? --Jim in NYC 08:57, October 11, 2009 (UTC)Jim in NYC : http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x01-2-hd/themantraphd387.jpg this shows Brent waiting for the turbolift. I can't find any screencaps with Hadley, so he might indeed not be in it.--Myko 11:58, October 26, 2009 (UTC) Brent is the taller guy in blue on the left? Because the one on the right is the craggy-faced unknown actor who's thought to be "Bobby"--click on the link on this page and you'll see a frontal shot of his face. 13:43, October 26, 2009 (UTC)Jim in NYC : The person on the left is indeed Frank da Vinci, if it's Brent or Vinci or someone else entirely I leave up to you. :) --Myko 14:22, October 26, 2009 (UTC) Screaming in Pain My six-year-old and I watched the episode last evening. This morning at breakfast, she noted that Shatner's (typically over-acted) screaming in pain at the end is inconsistent with the creature's method of hypnotic and secretive killing previously established in the episode. Wow, I never noticed that! Maybe the creature really, really didn't like Kirk for some reason and turned off the usual anaesthesic effect especially for Him? :-) Seriously, wouldn't it have been even more dramatic and creepy to show a nasty silent convulsive effect instead? -- 18:31, August 19, 2010 (UTC) Citation needed The following note has lacked citation since a green editor tagged it with an incite three years ago. * Some actors in this episode were selected based on their resemblance to each other. The transformation between Jeanne Bal and Bruce Watson is more effective because of this. If a citation can be found, feel free to return it.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 04:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC) Removed * Curiously, Spock raises no objection to killing the M-113 creature, even though like the Horta that he tried to save in , it is the last of its kind. Commentary/Nitpick.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:32, September 7, 2011 (UTC) Where has the salt of the planet gone? Same as in the headline. Salt doesn't just disappear after having been eaten. 11:19, August 11, 2012 (UTC) Possible Error In Episode Information According to the "Star Trek: TOS" HD remaster sets, Majel Barrett said H.G. Wells was involved with this episode. She also mentioned that the salt creature was based upon H.G. Wells' creature design for the Morlocks in the movie "The Time Machine". :What feature/commentary was that stated in? -- sulfur (talk) 13:53, October 30, 2012 (UTC) I am racing through the documentaries now. I will get you a reference. My mistake. I know someone from the movie "The Time Machine" was involved with "Star Trek". I just need to do more research. Sorry.